Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Why is it very few post out of camera shots without any tweaking?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
IFIMAGE
IFIMAGE  6143 forum posts Wales
10 Feb 2013 - 11:46 PM

I would like to know why everyone, or it feels like everyone has to tweak, adjust an image? Why not get it right in camera and not be obsessed with Photoshop or the Software of choice? Wink

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
10 Feb 2013 - 11:46 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

KevSB
KevSB  101407 forum posts United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
10 Feb 2013 - 11:50 PM

As most use raw format, out of camera would look very poor, the very nature of raw format requires it being tweaked. Unless of course you would also like us to use jpeg. We live in the 21 st century so we use the best tools at our disposal

KenTaylor
KenTaylor e2 Member 92980 forum postsKenTaylor vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
10 Feb 2013 - 11:51 PM

Pretty well essential when you shoot RAW.
Also essential if you work in B&W.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315218 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
10 Feb 2013 - 11:56 PM


Quote: As most use raw format, out of camera would look very poor, the very nature of raw format requires it being tweaked

It all depends on the camera used and the conditions.

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014794 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
10 Feb 2013 - 11:59 PM

...because no one votes on straight out of the camera shots ?

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315218 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:01 AM


Quote: because no one votes on straight out of the camera shots

Some of us have voting switched off Smile

snapbandit
snapbandit  102205 forum posts Northern Ireland3 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:05 AM

Really depends how much 'tweaking' you mean, IMHO most (if not all) DSLR's do not produce as sharp an image as film cameras do straight out of the camera, due to the nature of the capture sensor and require a certain amount of sharpening to bring it to an 'acceptable' level of sharpness. plus when an image is resized for upload to web or for printing they require some tweaking/sharpening to get the best 'technical' image quality for those mediums.

Personally most of my shots (not all as I sometimes succumb to having a good go at mucking them about in software) have the minimal 'fiddling' in software that I can manage, but then again I enjoy the actual process of going out and taking photos & try to get it 'right' as much as possible in the camera rather than the latest (IMO lazy) trend of relying on PS etc. to 'fix' them after (a worrying trend as far as I am concerned is that many 'camera' clubs are becoming photoshop clubs and often spend more time concentrating on how the software can 'improve' images than they do on actually using cameras correctly & photographing stuff!).

But each to their own, everyone has their own preferences as to how much 'adjusting' or how 'pure' they like their own images to be.

My 2p

(EDIT - it took me so long to compose & type that there were 5 answers before I posted mine!! - must learn to type faster!) WinkWink

Last Modified By snapbandit at 11 Feb 2013 - 12:09 AM
mcgannc
mcgannc  5389 forum posts England3 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:11 AM

This whole discussion is pretty much like horses (sorry, topical I know) and cars...why do we bother driving around in cars when a horse is perfectly adequate for getting from a to b.

And once we accepted the car, why did we bother improving it, making different models...etc, etc.

The point is, the medium is available to us, and just like 'film' can either be used well, or used not so well...ultimately, getting it as near to 'right' as possible in-camera will always give you a better starting point but that has never really changed!

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014794 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:11 AM


Quote: because no one votes on straight out of the camera shots

Some of us have voting switched off Smile

many have it switched on Wink

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73852 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:14 AM

Me, I prefer my images to be how my minds eye sees them, not how Nikon dictates.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315218 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:17 AM

Yep, we are not all recordist Smile

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014794 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:23 AM


Quote: Why not get it right in camera and not be obsessed with Photoshop or the Software of choice?

lack of skill with the camera/filters/lighting etc. ?

tenancy to "shop" it to get it right?

rescuing an otherwise poor shot with processing skills?

what you want doesn't exist in reality?

client wants something drab to look amazing?


all kinds of reasons...

ianrobinson
ianrobinson e2 Member 41107 forum postsianrobinson vcard United Kingdom8 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 1:31 AM

I use photo shop,I also shoot in raw, I don't use software to make a poor image look good because it won't happen, I use photoshop to make a good image the best I think it can be, end of.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315218 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 3:11 AM

I shoot in Raw and use PS or LR, generally most of my shoots don`t really need a lot if anything.

But to do nothing, it would be a bit like shooting a roll of film and getting the film and prints processed at Boots Smile

Photoshoping is a bit like printing by hand, you can put your own name to it.

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 11 Feb 2013 - 3:13 AM
Overread
Overread  63746 forum posts England18 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 5:58 AM

As said above many of us choose to shoot in RAW mode, this essentially gives us as close to a digital "negative" that we can get. That negative, just like with film, has to be processed before it can be viewed as an image.

Now in the world of film you could do it at home or send it to a lab. If you sent it to the lab and let them do as they would they'd touch the photo up to their standard level, higher quality labs might take more time or used more refined processes and also might act upon owner instruction as to applying certain effects or processes. But the upshot is that a standard lab would apply standard "adjustments" to the negative to get it to a print.

In the digital world of RAW and JPEG we can still do this - the JPEG out of the camera is that same "standard" adjustment photo. It's been adjusted in the camera to standard values set by the software developers - although the camera also offers the photographer the choice to pre-select the adjustments within a range of values to give their own twist to the standard.

RAW shooting however gives the photographer the negative to work from, even when you open it up in photoshop (or other software) the RAW processing stage still starts with the factory defaults (often as read by the camera) and leaves the actual final choice to the photographer to select (in fact most of the tools in digital editing are direct copies of methods and effects from the film processing world).


As for how far people take things that is up to them - for some setting its basic and others its intensive work. For some its a general overview, for others its nitpicking every fine detail. For some its HDR all the way to overpowering colours - for some it more moderate tonemapping.

In the end how far is hard to tell, some very heavily edited photos can be quite simple in their appearance, hiding the amount of post-shot work that went into them.




As for the argument on "fixing it in editing" this is a line made by marketing but often not used by many photographers. Fixing things is hard to do well and can take hours of time in editing. Many photographers greatly enjoy shooting and often aim to get it right in camera - whilst many I know who do extensively edit are just as keen because you need all that light data just right in-camera so that you can push and pull the photo more heavily without resulting in degradation of the quality (which either ruins the effect or adds even more editing time).



So in the end seeing "straight out of camera" shots is kinda hard to do, esp when so many shoot RAW. That said its also important to read the above and realise that editing and processing the picture for display is just the other half of the whole photographic process. People debate till they are blue in the face on forums and in person as to which part is the "greater" and which part is the more "truthful" or "pure" or "classic" etc... However all those arguments are avoiding the real truth, that they are simply equal halves of the whole that is the final print/display version. Sometimes with a specific photo one will be "more" intensive with work and effort, but no one half is greater than the whole. If you have a photo with no editing you have nothing to show - and if you have no photo you have nothing to edit to show.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.